Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
sensitive areas. He asked why traffic impact studies were not proposed for some of the minor local roads. <br />Planner Karen Lincoln said that some major subdivisions may access a major local road and not <br />a minor local road. <br />Commissioner Jacobs would like the staff to look at doing traffic impact studies for minor local <br />roads. He suggested taking out "major" and just saying "local" roads. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that this amendment is a big improvement from the 1981 plan. <br />Lynn Holtcamp said that she appreciates the comments made about the minor local roads <br />needing to have traffic impact statements. She questioned the statement about Cheeks Township being <br />attracted by economic development. <br />Craig Benedict said that instead of talking about a particular township we could talk about the <br />EDDs in general. <br />Lynn Holtcamp asked about miles and if it is road miles or radial miles (straight line miles) and <br />Craig Benedict said that it would be the centerline road miles. <br />Bob Strayhorn said that on some roads there are no new subdivisions, however, the traffic has <br />increased from areas further away. <br />Craig Benedict said that the staff would be getting additional information from DOT and models <br />that will hopefully indicate the background traffic that is not directly related to the subdivisions. <br />Lynn Holtcamp asked about historic roads and if this would be a designation. <br />Craig Benedict said that the historic roads would be part of an overlay of the comprehensive <br />plan. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that the state of North Carolina has a presumption that every <br />unpaved, rural road in the state will be paved to a width that DOT will accept. There is also a branch of DOT <br />that reviews road impacts on historic properties. It has, from time to time, ruled that the widening of the road <br />to DOT standards would destroy a historic characteristic, and therefore it should not be widened. He said <br />that we should be careful when a certain minimum right-of-way is presumed. <br />Craig Benedict said that the historic issue is a descriptive part that would be handled by <br />overlays, but he does not see any problem with adding the issue of historic right-of-ways and not having the <br />need to widen to the DOT standard. <br />2.Section IV -Required Minimum Design Standards <br />(a) Section IV-B-3 Roads <br />Craig Benedict said that he had covered everything in his presentation. <br />MOTION <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the proposed <br />amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no <br />sooner than May 3, 2000. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />D. ADJOURNMENT <br />With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be held on <br />February 29 at 7:30 p. m. at the Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill, Narth Carolina. <br />Moses Carey, Jr., Chair <br />Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk <br />